I was surprised to see this week’s readings reflect so much on the importance of leadership; Ganz places it at the center of his organizing diagram. I have always viewed organizing as a more horizontal effort, consisting of community members coming together for a shared purpose. While this is not in contrast with Ganz’s writings, he emphasizes the role of the leader or team of leaders in this process. It made me think of earlier conversations in class about the delicate balance between a hierarchy’s positive influence and the collective voice. We have talked often about the power of stories, but also the need to question whose story is told, how it is shared and who takes ownership of the narrative. I found myself coming back to these challenges as I read about the leader “mobilizing feelings that inhibit action,” or “telling a new public story.” How does such a leader gain authority within a group, and how do they remain legitimate? At what point is their leadership manipulative? I thought Osterman’s example of the IAF, which has an oligarchical structure, yet functions with an energetic and empowered membership provides a good case for where these structures are effective.
Another theme in Ganz’s writing is that of timing. He describes community organizing as an effort to mobilize around a particular event with a specific timeline and a focused agenda. He writes that strategic capacity matters most in times of “radical uncertainty,” when successful organizations can use their creative capability to design new solutions with their existing resources. I believe an important synergy exists with McDowell’s critical moments reflection. Where the critical moments methodology identifies important junctures in the past, practicing such reflection can build capacity to respond at critical moments that have yet to happen. Such practice allows an organization to not only recognize the moment, but also respond quickly and effectively to its unique challenges.
A third takeaway from the readings is the tension between institutionalizing changes and a continual need to adapt to new ones. By institutionalizing positive changes, we prevent the process of reinventing the wheel with every new challenge or campaign. At what point, do these foundations provide us with the necessary tools to respond, and at what point do they inhibit our ability to, as Ganz puts it, “create new algorithms?” I am interested to hear his thoughts on how to navigate this continuum of organizational change.